Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 614 posts

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#161

Post by MrRadar »

lightedman wrote: post #66
Pxtl wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the Android version of Firefox is unusably crashy on my phone (moto z play) and noticeably slower. I gave it a hard try, but it just wasn't workable. Still using Firefox on all desktop/laptop devices, though.

Your phone is probably one of the ones that came out with bad RAM and is defective, it works great on both my Moto Z Play and Moto G6 Play.

Same on my Moto G7 Power and Moto E4. I've never had a (regular) problem with FF crashing on any of my Android phones.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#162

Post by scarface74 »

cookie_monsta wrote: post #119
scarface74 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By 2010, at least in the US, it had to work on mobile. See all of the websites that abandoned Flash.

I'm not sure I see the relevance of this. Could you elaborate?

That IE didn’t set the standards anymore by 2010. By then, you had to be compatible with iPhones and by the end of the year iPads.

And it wasn’t big daddy government that killed IE’s stranglehold....

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#163

Post by mdtusz »

phasnox wrote: post #16
radicalbyte wrote: post #6

It's time to switch to Firefox as my main web browser. It's faster and generally more efficient than Chrome plus it has the most important extensions. The most surprising thing is that the Android version of Firefox is excellent. So good that I switched from Chrome a few months ago when this expected news first dropped. No ads on mobile is awesome.

I'd try Brave.

If you're a vim user, try qutebrowser. It has some quirks, but with the ability to customize keyboard shortcuts and call upon scripts it's hard to move back to a "normal" browser.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#164

Post by SomeOtherThrow »

torben-friis wrote: post #18

I wonder if it's been on purpose or just, as always, their automatic algorithms being imposible to contest when they're wrong. Honestly, Google's (and general tech giants') willingness to let people's lives be caught in the cracks of their algorithms in their pursue for scalability scares me more than any ideology they could push. More and more, we're seeing developers and content creators being banned or demonetised…

Or we could just prosecute App Store monopolies. Nobody should ever have to go through google, or apple, or Microsoft, or Facebook, or amazon to publish software. The point of software is to be portable. I’m sick of buying artificially crippled crap.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#165

Post by dev_dull »

jokoon wrote: post #43
agumonkey wrote: post #27

Few monthes ago I forced myself to fully drop Chromium. Painful. But I don't have chrome on any laptops (only my smartphone). I don't regret it. Google is stringing bad news after bad news.

what was painful?

Google hangouts video uses about 50% of CPU. For many people hangouts is part of everyday work life.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#166

Post by scarface74 »

zaarn wrote: post #151
scarface74 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is no different than any other for profit corporation. Their first interest is making money by getting their customers to pay them. Their customers are advertisers. Their users are what they sell to their customers.

Even better reason to push for independent browser engines like Gecko (Firefox).

And that’s fine. But anytime HN users start whining “monopoly” the next thing they start screaming is for government to intervene every time that Google/Apple/Amazon doesn’t something that they don’t like.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#167

Post by CDSlice »

frankharv wrote: post #144
hv42 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox has better tooling for CSS (really good flexbox for e.g.) but it lacks on the JS side. One basic feature that is missing for e.g. is that one cannot open a file using the syntax filename:line:column in the source editor. You will need to navigate the line number manually after opening the file.

Thank goodness. Browsers are for browing the internet. File Managers are used for opening files. I lock down SeaMonkeys JS. Personally I like SeaMonkey as it is community build Mozilla. Many of the "features" have settings in preferences. It seems to me that the Mozilla Foundation is pushing the project in some weird spots(DoH) and while not ad revenue based, they do take money from companies. Notice the Search Provi…

> Heck who wants to search from the URL bar.

Me? I love this feature.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#168

Post by throwaway8941 »

Ayesh wrote: post #146
jokoon wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what was painful?

Not the OP, but password management and syncing in Firefox is a bit clunky. I use and love the send to device feature and password syncing (I use FF as my main drive for desktop and mobile), but they are quite slow compared to Chrome. I get it that Chrome is syncing aggressively, which would have been nice in Firefox too, even if it eats up my mobile data. Chrome web view is also the default web view in Android.

They completely reworked password manager in version 70. Try FF Developer Edition or Beta?

https://i.imgur.com/o2nOB8h.png

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#169

Post by gtirloni »

scarface74 wrote: post #76
gtirloni wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to think in terms of a de facto monopoly in this case: https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/de-facto-monopoly/ https://business-law.freeadvice.com/business-law/trade_regul... I don't know if the 69% number from StatCounter would qualify as a de facto monopoly, but it's close to the 75% number quoted in the previous article: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl...

Well, “de facto” monopoly doesn’t mean anything in the eyes of the law. That’s what de jure means Despite what HN posters believe, the definition of a monopoly isn’t “a company that is big and does things I don’t like”. Also according to your own citation. Under the Sherman Act monopoly power is considered the ability of a business to control a price within its relevant product market or its geographic market or to e…

De facto means something in the eyes of the law. Where did you get it from that it doesn't?

> Are we going to say that the government can tell businesses what is allowed in its own store?

Yes, we definitely are. If there's a monopoly and the monopolist is blocking people from participating, of course we can get the courts involved. Just google all the antitrust cases about Microsoft, Google and Apple, among others.

Re: "price", even if there's no monetary exchange, other goods are being exchanged (personal information, ads, etc).

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#170

Post by shubidubi »

radicalbyte wrote: post #6

It's time to switch to Firefox as my main web browser. It's faster and generally more efficient than Chrome plus it has the most important extensions. The most surprising thing is that the Android version of Firefox is excellent. So good that I switched from Chrome a few months ago when this expected news first dropped. No ads on mobile is awesome.

I'm using Firefox for a while now (both on desktop and mobile) and I love it. The only missing part for me on Android is that Firefox doesn't open native apps (YouTube, maps, Instagram etc..) when you open a link. The integration with built in apps like chrome has is not there.
Post reply on HN